THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201414. April 18, 2018.]

PEDRO PEREZ , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

respondent.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

Inserting a nger in a 12-year-old girl's vagina and mashing her breasts are not
only acts of lasciviousness but also amount to child abuse punished under Republic Act
No. 7610.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, praying that the September 30, 2011 Decision 2 and April 10, 2012
Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33290 be reversed and set
aside. 4 The Court of Appeals a rmed the March 8, 2010 Judgment 5 of the Regional
Trial Court, which found Pedro Perez (Perez) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
On March 29, 1999, an Information was led against Perez, charging him with
violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children
against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act: 6
[T]hat on or about the 7th day of November 1998, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, with lewd design, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously commit an act of sexual abuse upon the person of [AAA],
a minor, 12 years of age, by then and there inserting his nger [into] her private
organ while mashing her breast against her will and without her consent which
act debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of
complainant as a human being, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Perez pleaded not guilty during arraignment. 8 Pre-trial was held, wherein the
prosecution and the defense stipulated the following:
1. That at the time of the commission of the crime, the minor, the victim in
this case was only 12 years of age; and
2. That the accused was residing at that time at No. 4, Pangasinan Street,
Luzviminda Street, Brgy. Batasan Hills, Quezon City. 9
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. 1 0 The prosecution presented AAA, 1 1
SPO4 Mila Billones (SPO4 Billones), and Dr. Winston Tan (Dr. Tan) as its witnesses. 1 2
AAA testi ed that she met Perez for the rst time on November 6, 1998 when
she attended her cousin BBB's birthday party. The next day, November 7, 1998, she saw
Perez again when she visited her friend CCC at her house. Aside from her, Perez, and
CCC, their other companions inside the house were BBB, DDD, and EEE. 1 3
AAA recalled that she was wearing a sleeveless blouse, a skirt, and cycling shorts
under her skirt that day. 1 4
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 AAA narrated that she "went to the kitchen to drink water." 1 5 She saw Perez
following her. 1 6 After drinking, Perez "kissed her on the nape and simultaneously told
her to keep silent." 1 7 Then, Perez slid his nger in her vagina while mashing her breasts.
AAA stated that it was painful when Perez inserted his nger. She attempted to remove
his hands but he forced himself. Because she was very afraid, she failed to ght back.
Perez succeeded in his sexual advances, which lasted for around ten seconds. He then
told her not to tell anybody about what happened. 1 8
AAA later narrated what happened to her other cousin FFF, who disclosed the
incident to AAA's parents. Her parents reported the incident to the barangay o cials,
who eventually referred the matter to the police for investigation. 1 9
SPO4 Billones testi ed that she was the women's desk o cer who interviewed
AAA. At rst, AAA hesitated to answer the questions but eventually disclosed what
happened. SPO4 Billones observed that AAA almost cried when she narrated that Perez
inserted his nger into her vagina. After the interview, she prepared AAA's statement
and thereafter led the case. She also recommended AAA to undergo further medical
examination. 2 0
Dr. Tan testi ed that he was a Medico-Legal O cer of the Philippine National
Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City. 2 1 He examined AAA and stated
in his Medico Legal Report that there were "signs of physical abuse, particularly, deep
healed laceration at three (3) o'clock on the hymen of [AAA] and ecchymosis in the right
mammary region." 2 2 He noted that the laceration was consistent with AAA's allegation
of sexual abuse and that the ecchymosis or bruising matched with the date of the
alleged incident. 2 3 However, he also testi ed that the "injuries can likewise be in icted
in a consensual relationship." 2 4
Meanwhile, the defense presented Perez; his sister, Alma Perez (Alma); and CCC
as its witnesses. 2 5
At the time of his testimony on May 23, 2005, Perez mentioned that he was 26
years old. Thus, he was about 19 years old in 1998 when the offense was committed.
26

Perez denied abusing AAA. He stated that he rst met AAA on October 17, 1998.
AAA purportedly informed him that she was already 16 years old. He testi ed that he
was not romantically involved with AAA. However, AAA supposedly gave him a love
letter through Alma but he did not reciprocate her affection. He admitted that he met
AAA again at BBB's birthday on November 6, 1998. 2 7
Perez narrated that on the day of the alleged incident, he and his aunt, Nena
Rodrigo, went to a school in New Manila. He left her aunt around 6:00 p.m. and went
straight home. 2 8
Perez added that on November 11, 1998, AAA led a complaint against him for
slander before the barangay. They were able to settle the matter, and their agreement
was put in writing. 2 9
Alma testi ed that she noticed that AAA liked her brother Perez. She was also
surprised when AAA gave her a love letter for her brother. She stated that AAA went to
their place frequently and that she talked to her at BBB's party. 3 0
CCC testi ed that she, AAA, and BBB were together on the day of the alleged
incident. However, she swore that she did not see Perez enter her house. She also did
not see anything unusual with AAA that day. She claimed that they just slept for ve (5)
hours the whole time they were together. 3 1
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 On March 8, 2010, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Judgment, 3 2 nding Perez
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, in
relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. 3 3 It held that the prosecution was
able to establish the presence of all elements of violation of Section 5 (b). Perez
likewise failed to provide proof of his alibi. 3 4 Lastly, it noted that "the location as well
as the presence of other persons [are] not a barometer that a rapist will be deterred in
his lustful intentions to commit the crime of rape if and when his urgings call for it." 3 5
The dispositive portion of the trial court Judgment provided:
WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby rendered nding accused Pedro Perez
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of R.A. 7610, otherwise known
as the "Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act in relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR IN ITS MEDIUM PERIOD AS
MINIMUM TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS OF
RECLUSION TEMPORAL IN ITS MINIMUM PERIOD AS MAXIMUM .
Accused Pedro Perez is likewise ordered to pay FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages and TWENTY[-]FIVE THOUSAND
PESOS (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages plus costs of suit.
SO ORDERED. 3 6 (Emphasis in the original)
Perez filed an appeal 3 7 before the Court of Appeals. 3 8
On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision, 3 9
dismissing the appeal and a rming the trial court's Judgment. 4 0 The dispositive
portion of this Decision provided:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby
DISMISSED . Accordingly, the assailed Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City (RTC), Branch 94, dated March 8, 2010 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED . 4 1 (Emphasis in the original)
Perez moved for reconsideration, 4 2 which was denied by the Court of Appeals in
its April 10, 2012 Resolution. 4 3
On May 30, 2012, Perez led a Petition for Review 4 4 before this Court.
Respondent People of the Philippines, through the O ce of the Solicitor General, led
its Comment 4 5 on September 6, 2013. Meanwhile, petitioner led a Manifestation and
Motion (In Lieu of Reply) 4 6 on September 30, 2013.
On April 7, 2014, this Court issued a Resolution 4 7 giving due course to the
petition. The parties subsequently submitted their respective Memoranda. 4 8
In his pleadings, petitioner asserts that the situation created by AAA is
improbable and not in line with common human experience, given her tight- tting
clothes at the time of the incident. Although not impenetrable, her attire was restricting
and the time needed to consummate the alleged act was enough for her to ask for help
from her companions. AAA likewise fails to mention how petitioner subdued her in
spite of her resistance. Petitioner stresses that the alleged crime occurred in close
proximity of other persons. It is then impossible that nobody noticed what was
happening. 4 9
Petitioner points out that the medico-legal o cer testi ed that there was a
possibility that the injuries sustained by AAA were in icted with her consent in a sexual
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 relationship. 5 0 In addition to his denial of any romantic relationship with AAA, 5 1 he
claims that "the medico-legal report did not conclusively prove that [he] was
responsible for [AAA's] vaginal laceration." 5 2
Finally, petitioner contends that assuming a crime was committed, it should only
be acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code since the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the elements of
child abuse. 5 3 Petitioner explains:
[B]efore an accused may be convicted of child abuse through lascivious
conduct involving a minor below twelve (12) years of age, the requisites for acts
of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code must be met IN
ADDITION to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.
The elements of the offense aforementioned, are as follows:
"1. The accused commits the acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse .
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age." 54
(Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to allege the second element either
in the Complaint or in the Information. According to petitioner, the prosecution must
also prove that AAA was "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse"
aside from being subjected to acts of lasciviousness since these are separate and
distinct elements. 5 5
On the other hand, respondent avers that petitioner tried to challenge the
credibility of the prosecution's witnesses when he raised the matter of the attire worn
by AAA and when he questioned her reaction during the incident. However, respondent
pointed out that the trial court already found its witnesses credible. Hence, the trial
court's ndings should be given great weight considering that it did not commit any
misappreciation of facts. 5 6
Respondent maintains that AAA's garment, no matter how tight- tting as
petitioner claims, is not unpierceable and petitioner could have easily slid his hand
inside it. AAA's inaction is also understandable since she was only 12 years old when
the incident happened and fear already overcame her when petitioner threatened her
not to speak or shout. 5 7
In addition, the medico-legal report veri es AAA's claim that she was sexually
assaulted. This report and Dr. Tan's testimony corroborate AAA's allegation that it was
petitioner who committed the crime. 5 8
Respondent also counters that petitioner failed to timely question the nature of
his indictment since he only raised it for the rst time on appeal. Moreover, the
allegations contained in the Information su ciently support a conviction for Child
Abuse under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 in relation to Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code. 5 9
There are two (2) issues for this Court's resolution:
First, whether the evidence sufficiently establishes AAA's narrative; and
Second, whether all the elements charged in the Information are su ciently
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 I

Petitioner advances the seeming impossibility of AAA's allegation of child abuse

considering AAA's out t that day, her inaction during and after the commission of the
alleged act, and the presence of other persons in the house where it happened.
Petitioner's contention has no merit.
This Court cannot accept this reasoning of petitioner. As correctly found by the
Court of Appeals:
This type of reasoning borders on the preposterous in that the accused
literally made it sound like the victim's cycling shorts were made of
impenetrable steel like a chastity belt. That, or he is trying to portray himself as
a hapless human being with wispy cotton for arms such that the act of lifting a
child's blouse or adjusting her undergarment's waistband (to accommodate his
hand) pose a serious physical challenge that a man of his age and built cannot
hope to accomplish. This, at all, does not run afoul with human experience as
the accused so conveniently puts it. On the contrary, this particular act of
indecency is easily attainable given the disparity in his strength and that of the
child's, the unique access by which the accused succeeded in his dastardly act
and, for good measure, the customary ascendancy that adults have over
children.
As so clearly described by the victim, the manner by which the accused
committed lasciviousness against her is not far removed from the [other victims
of acts of lasciviousness] before her. She stated that the accused sneaked in
after her when she walked toward the kitchen to fetch herself a glass of water.
There, hidden from everyone else (the living room and the kitchen [were]
separated by a room), the accused took advantage of the situation by inserting
his ngers from behind her and fumbled her breast that visibly resulted in a
bruise. Young as she is, she struggled as best as she could to remove herself
from his grip but the accused warned her not to scream or shout for help. For a
child of tenders (sic) age, such a stern warning from a fully grown man was
enough to kill off whatever courage she might have had to scream for the others
for assistance. 6 0
In Awas v. People, 6 1 the 10-year-old victim likewise failed to shout for help when
the accused touched her vagina. 6 2 This Court held that "[t]here is no standard behavior
for a victim of a crime against chastity." 6 3 Moreover, "[b]ehavioral psychology teaches
that people react to similar situations dissimilarly." 6 4
In People v. Lomaque , 6 5 the accused sexually abused the victim since she was
eight (8) years old until she was 14 years old. 6 6 The accused inserted either his penis
or his nger in the victim's vagina in more than 10 instances. 6 7 The victim also failed to
cry for help. 6 8 This Court held:
Neither the failure of "AAA" to struggle nor at least offer resistance during
the rape incidents would tarnish her credibility. "Physical resistance need not be
established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and the latter
submits herself out of fear. As has been held, the failure to shout or offer
tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the
criminal acts of the accused." Rape is subjective and not everyone responds in
the same way to an attack by a sexual end. Although an older person may
have shouted for help under similar circumstances, a young victim such as
"AAA" is easily overcome by fear and may not be able to cry for help.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 We have consistently ruled that "no standard form of behavior can be
anticipated of a rape victim following her de lement, particularly a child who
could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react
differently to emotional stress and rape victims are no different from them." 6 9
(Citations omitted)
People v. Barcela 7 0 further elucidated the reaction of a minor when something
extremely and unexpectedly dreadful happens to him or her:
Behavioral psychology teaches us that, even among adults, people react
to similar situations differently, and there is no standard form of human
behavioral response when one is confronted with a startling or frightful
experience. Let it be underscored that these cases involve victims of tender
years, and with their simple, unsophisticated minds, they must not have fully
understood and realized at rst the repercussions of the contemptible nature of
the acts committed against them. This Court has repeatedly stated that no
standard form of behavior could be anticipated of a rape victim following her
de lement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend
the ways of an adult. 7 1 (Citations omitted)
It is also not impossible for petitioner to commit the crime even if there were
other people nearby. In Barcela, the accused was able to insert his nger inside the
vagina of his 14-year-old stepdaughter while the victim's mother and her other sister
were sleeping in the same room. 7 2 In People v. Divinagracia, Sr. , 7 3 the accused
inserted his nger in the vagina of his eight (8)-year-old daughter and raped her
afterwards while his nine (9)-year-old daughter was lying beside her. 7 4 In People v.
Gaduyon, 7 5 the accused inserted his nger into the vagina of his 12-year-old daughter
who was then sleeping on the upper portion of a double-deck bed while his other
daughter was on the lower portion. 7 6
This Court cannot emphasize enough that "lust is no respecter of time and place."
77 Thus, "rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks,
along the roadside, within school premises and even inside a house where there are
other occupants or where other members of the family are also sleeping." 7 8
Furthermore, the victim in this case was able to positively identify her assailant.
She made a clear and categorical statement that petitioner was the person who
committed the crime against her. Aside from petitioner's denial, he failed to present his
aunt as a witness or other documentary evidence to corroborate his alibi that he went
to a school on the day of the incident. In light of AAA's positive declaration, petitioner's
unsubstantiated defense must fail following the doctrine that "positive identi cation
prevails over denial and alibi." 7 9
In People v. Amarela , 8 0 this Court had occasion to correct a generalization of all
women, which amounted to a stereotype, thus:
More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story of
sexual depredation, rape cases are solely decided based on the credibility of the
testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on the
impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that
she has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural
instinct to protect her honor. However, this misconception, particularly in this
day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a
travesty of justice.
The "women's honor" doctrine surfaced in our jurisprudence sometime in
1960. In the case of People v. Taño , the Court a rmed the conviction of three
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (3) armed robbers who took turns raping a person named Herminigilda
Domingo. The Court, speaking through Justice Alejo Labrador, said:
It is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos,
would not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse
had actually happened. This is due to their natural instinct to
protect their honor. We cannot believe that the offended party
would have positively stated that intercourse took place unless it
did actually take place.
This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitur. And while the factual
setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman
to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault[,] today, we simply cannot be stuck
to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We,
should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman's
dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a
strong and con dently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to ght for her
rights. 8 1 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
This Court then found the alleged victim's statement as less credible than the
inferences from the other established evidence and proceeded to acquit the accused.
This Court in Amarela, however, did not go as far as denying the existence of
patriarchal dominance in many social relationships. Courts must continue to be
sensitive to the power relations that come clothed in gender roles. In many instances, it
does take courage for girls or women to come forward and testify against the boys or
men in their lives who, perhaps due to cultural roles, dominate them. Courts must
continue to acknowledge that the dastardly illicit and lustful acts of men are often
veiled in either the power of coercive threat or the inconvenience inherent in patriarchy
as a culture.
Even if it were true that AAA was infatuated with the accused, it did not justify the
indignity done to her. At the tender age of 12, adolescents will normally be misled by
their hormones and mistake regard or adoration for love. The aggressive expression of
infatuation from a 12-year-old girl is never an invitation for sexual indignities. Certainly,
it does not deserve the accused's mashing of her breasts or the insertion of his nger
into her vagina.
Consistent with our pronouncement in Amarela, AAA was no Maria Clara. Not
being the ctitious and generalized demure girl, it does not make her testimony less
credible especially when supported by the other pieces of evidence presented in this
case.

II

Petitioner asserts that even assuming that he is liable, he is only liable for acts of
lasciviousness since the prosecution failed to prove all elements of child abuse under
Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Petitioner is mistaken.
Article III, Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 provides:
ARTICLE III
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether
male or female, who for money, pro t, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or in uence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse;
Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 5 (b), the elements of sexual abuse are:
(1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct[;]
(2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse[; and]
(3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 8 2
The presence of the rst and third elements is already established. Petitioner
admits in the pre-trial that AAA was only 12 years old at the commission of the crime.
He also concedes that if ever he is liable, he is liable only for acts of lasciviousness.
However, petitioner claims that the second element is wanting. For petitioner, the
prosecution must show that AAA was "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse."
A thorough review of the records reveals that the second element is present in
this case.
This Court in People v. Villacampa 8 3 explained:
[T]he second element is that the act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. To meet this element, the child
victim must either be exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse. In Quimvel v. People, the Court held that the fact that a child is under the
coercion and in uence of an adult is su cient to satisfy this second element
and will classify the child victim as one subjected to other sexual abuse. The
Court held:
To the mind of the Court, the allegations are su cient to
classify the victim as one "exploited in prostitution or subject to
other sexual abuse." This is anchored on the very de nition of the
phrase in Sec. 5 of RA 7610, which encompasses children who
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money,
pro t, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts pertaining
to or connected with child prostitution wherein the child is abused
primarily for pro t. On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child
subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation
where a child is abused for pro t but also one in which a child,
through coercion, intimidation or in uence, engages in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not
only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse
against children. . . . 8 4 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In Ricalde v. People, 8 5 this Court clarified:
The rst paragraph of Article III, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610
clearly provides that "children . . . who . . . due to the coercion . . . of any adult . . .
indulge in sexual intercourse . . . are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse." The label "children exploited in . . . other
sexual abuse" inheres in a child who has been the subject of coercion and
sexual intercourse.
Thus, paragraph (b) refers to a speci cation only as to who is liable and
the penalty to be imposed. The person who engages in sexual intercourse with a
child already coerced is liable. 8 6 (Underscoring in the original)
By analogy with the ruling in Ricalde, children who are likewise coerced in
lascivious conduct are "deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual
abuse." When petitioner inserted his nger into the vagina of AAA, a minor, with the use
of threat and coercion, he is already liable for sexual abuse.

III

This Court a rms the nding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of petitioner for
the charge of child abuse under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. However, this
Court modi es the penalty imposed by the trial court, as a rmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Under Section 5 (b), "the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period." Reclusion
temporal in its medium period is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day
to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
In People v. Pusing , 8 7 this Court imposed the indeterminate penalty of fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum for the
criminal case of child abuse. 8 8 This Court also awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 8 9 Additionally,
"interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum [was imposed on all damages awarded] from
the date of finality of [the] judgment until fully paid." 9 0
WHEREFORE , this Court ADOPTS the ndings of fact and conclusions of law of
the Court of Appeals September 30, 2011 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 33290, with
MODIFICATION as follows:
WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby rendered nding accused Pedro Perez
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of R.A. 7610, otherwise known
as the "Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act in relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOURTEEN
(14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 TEMPORAL AS MINIMUM TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4)
MONTHS OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM .
Accused Pedro Perez is likewise ordered to pay FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) as moral damages , and THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) as exemplary damages plus costs of suit.
All awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of
six percent (6%) per annum from the date of nality of this judgment
until fully paid .
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 9-29.
2. Id. at 85-95. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in
by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Rodil V. Zalameda of the Special Sixteenth
Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at 103-104. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and
concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Rodil V. Zalameda of the
Former Special Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 25.
5. Id. at 48-58. The Judgment, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-99-84282, was penned by
Presiding Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Tria of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
6. Id. at 48 and 85-86.
7. Id. at 48.
8. Id.

9. Id.
10. Id.
11. The fictitious initials "AAA" represent the victim-survivor's real name. In People v.
Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]), this Court discussed the need
to withhold the victim's real name and other information that would compromise the
victim's identity, applying the confidentiality provisions of: (1) Republic Act No. 7610
(Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
and its implementing rules; (2) Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and
their Children Act of 2004) and its implementing rules; and (3) this Court's October 19,
2004 resolution in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence against Women and their
Children).
12. Rollo, pp. 49 and 87-88.
13. Id. at 49.
14. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 49-50 and 87.
19. Id. at 50 and 87.

20. Id. at 50 and 88.

21. Id. at 50.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 50 and 87.
24. Id. at 50.

25. Id. at 50-51 and 86-87.

26. Id. at 54.
27. Id. at 50-51 and 86.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 51.

30. Id.
31. Id. at 86-87.

32. Id. at 48-58.

33. Id. at 57.

34. Id. at 51-57.

35. Id. at 56.

36. Id. at 57.

37. Id. at 30-47.

38. Id. at 85.

39. Id. at 85-95.

40. Id. at 94.

41. Id.
42. Id. at 96-99.

43. Id. at 103-104.

44. Id. at 9-29.

45. Id. at 127-153.

46. Id. at 154-157.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 47. Id. at 161.

48. Id. at 166-192, People of the Philippines' Memorandum filed on July 7, 2014, and 198-213,
Pedro Perez's Memorandum filed on August 4, 2014.
49. Id. at 203-205.

50. Id. at 206.

51. Id. at 86.

52. Id. at 206.

53. Id. at 206-210.

54. Id. at 208-210.

55. Id.

56. Id. at 171-180.

57. Id.

58. Id. at 180-181.

59. Id. at 181-188.

60. Id. at 89-90. There was no finding in the trial court or in the Court of Appeals as to the
physical built of the accused in relation to that of the victim's physique.
61. G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/june2017/203114.pdf> [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].

62. Id. at 5.
63. Id.

64. Id.

65. 710 Phil. 338 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
66. Id. at 344-346.

67. Id.

68. Id. at 351.

69. Id. at 352.

70. 734 Phil. 332 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].

71. Id. at 344.

72. Id. at 338.

73. G.R. No. 207765, July 26, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/207765.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

74. Id. at 3.

75. 720 Phil. 750 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 76. Id. at 758.
77. People v. Cesista, 435 Phil. 250, 267 (2002) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc]. See also People v.
Evina, 453 Phil. 25, 41 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division], People v. Calamlam,
451 Phil. 283, 296 (2003) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division], People v. Besmonte,
445 Phil. 555, 564 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division], and People v. Lomaque,
710 Phil. 338, 353 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
78. People v. Evina, 453 Phil. 25, 41 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].

79. People v. Lubong, 388 Phil. 474, 491 (2000) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division].
80. G.R. Nos. 225642-43, January 17, 2018 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2018/january2018/225642-43.pdf> [Per J. Martires, Third Division].

81. Id. at 7.

82. People v. Villacampa, G.R. No. 216057, January 8, 2018

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2018/january2018//pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2018/january2018/216057.pdf> [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
See also People v. Gaduyon, 720 Phil. 750, 768-769 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
Division]; People v. Fragante, 657 Phil. 577, 596 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division];
Awas v. People, G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/june2017/203114.pdf> 6 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].

83. G.R. No. 216057, January 8, 2018 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].

84. Id.
85. 751 Phil. 793 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

86. Id. at 813-814.

87. 789 Phil. 541 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. See also People v. Gaduyon, 720 Phil.
750, 780 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], wherein this Court initially imposed
the penalty of reclusion temporal for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610 but
was later increased to reclusion perpetua due to the aggravating circumstance of
relationship.
88. People v. Pusing, 789 Phil. 541, 563 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

89. Id.

90. Id. at 562.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com